New York is filled with tiny little corner shops with cramped aisles that even ambulatory fat asses can't fit down. I take it the price of real estate is so high they have to cram a store into one quarter the size of a normal store.

The solution is simple. Get rid of them all, let Wal-Mart build a store in Staten Island somewhere and then everyone in any of the five boroughs who needs to grab a few things should just drive 10-20 miles to their "local" Wal-Mart, like everyone in real America has to do.

1) allow anyone to sue when they see a violation2) provide an army of inspectors to check every business location in america.

#2 creates an incredibly large bureaucracy which couldn't possible service all of america reasonably

#1 provides for individuals to look like douche-bags by pointing out the incorrectly built and managed business locations

Or C) Admit not every square inch of America can be rebuilt to be handicapped accessible, despite PC optimism. Sidewalks, public buildings? Sure. But small business and private building that were built decades or even a century before the ADA existed, not so much.

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:Or C) Admit not every square inch of America can be rebuilt to be handicapped accessible, despite PC optimism. Sidewalks, public buildings? Sure. But small business and private building that were built decades or even a century before the ADA existed, not so much.

And the law allows for this. Unfortunately, you have to go to court and prove you are exempt from the ADA requirements, which means hiring a lawyer, paying for experts, site surveys, etc. Which is exactly how this scam works, the lawyer gives you two options:

A) Go to court and fight it, which will run you $30k at least, and there's still a chance you might lose depending on if the judge is an asshat or not.B) Pay us $5k, or $10k or whatever, and we'll drop the lawsuit.

A good way around this would be a government inspector that gets called in only on these lawsuits to verify the integrity of the suit. Make it a flat $200 fee (or whatever), and if he says the business is clear, no lawsuit is allowed.

1) allow anyone to sue when they see a violation2) provide an army of inspectors to check every business location in america.

#2 creates an incredibly large bureaucracy which couldn't possible service all of america reasonably

#1 provides for individuals to look like douche-bags by pointing out the incorrectly built and managed business locations

2. Would work but what a nightmare. We would need departments at the county and state levels probably. Maybe call them building departments. They would have to be staffed with all kinds of people, maybe call them building inspectors....

My friend has a motorized wheelchair. It's freaking big. When he travels around Chicago, he doesn't hold it against the stores that are in hundred of years old buildings that were not designed for him. Normally he doesn't go, or just have the guy running the place bring him out what he needs.

Nogale:Eventually she'll run into a judge who is less than sympathetic to her tactics. Suing a business owner whose shop has actually been fitted out to grant access to the disabled? Bad move.

Some guy tried this in Chicago a number of years ago, but he farked up because he would just go down the street and write down the name and addresses of businesses that did not have ramps and would then try to sue them. Many of those businesses, however, had removable ramps. They were in vintage buildings and were given an exemption from having to install permanent ramps. These places usually had a single step up and the door bell could be reached by someone in a wheelchair. If this guy had rung the bell the employees would have brought out a ramp, set it up, and he could have entered the business. After some bad press coverage he stopped being a douche.

ShawnDoc:ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Or C) Admit not every square inch of America can be rebuilt to be handicapped accessible, despite PC optimism. Sidewalks, public buildings? Sure. But small business and private building that were built decades or even a century before the ADA existed, not so much.

And the law allows for this. Unfortunately, you have to go to court and prove you are exempt from the ADA requirements, which means hiring a lawyer, paying for experts, site surveys, etc. Which is exactly how this scam works, the lawyer gives you two options:

A) Go to court and fight it, which will run you $30k at least, and there's still a chance you might lose depending on if the judge is an asshat or not.B) Pay us $5k, or $10k or whatever, and we'll drop the lawsuit.

A good way around this would be a government inspector that gets called in only on these lawsuits to verify the integrity of the suit. Make it a flat $200 fee (or whatever), and if he says the business is clear, no lawsuit is allowed.

Make the fee an even grand, and the inspection a condition of the suit (litigant pays). If they have enough of a case to proceed, they get it back win or lose, if they don't, bye $1k. They might think twice the next time and keep some of the frivolous suits out of the system.

1) allow anyone to sue when they see a violation2) provide an army of inspectors to check every business location in america.

#2 creates an incredibly large bureaucracy which couldn't possible service all of america reasonably

#1 provides for individuals to look like douche-bags by pointing out the incorrectly built and managed business locations

Or C) Admit not every square inch of America can be rebuilt to be handicapped accessible, despite PC optimism. Sidewalks, public buildings? Sure. But small business and private building that were built decades or even a century before the ADA existed, not so much.

Mock26:Nogale: Eventually she'll run into a judge who is less than sympathetic to her tactics. Suing a business owner whose shop has actually been fitted out to grant access to the disabled? Bad move.

Some guy tried this in Chicago a number of years ago, but he farked up because he would just go down the street and write down the name and addresses of businesses that did not have ramps and would then try to sue them. Many of those businesses, however, had removable ramps. They were in vintage buildings and were given an exemption from having to install permanent ramps. These places usually had a single step up and the door bell could be reached by someone in a wheelchair. If this guy had rung the bell the employees would have brought out a ramp, set it up, and he could have entered the business. After some bad press coverage he stopped being a douche.

FTA, it sounds like plenty of the businesses being sued are the same, but this lady is betting they'll settle to avoid the costs of a trial.

Most of the frivolous lawsuits you hear about work pretty much the same way, actually; the plaintiff knows they probably won't win, they're just hoping the defendant settles. Which they usually do, because who wants the hassle and expense of a court case when you can avoid it for five grand?

ADA = typical socialist fascism. If a store does not meet the needs of its customers then it will go out of business, NO NEED FOR GUBMINT INTERFERENCE. Equality under the law is when crips and vegetables have the same power as any other customer - the power to not shop there. Not when the gubmint gives them special rights.

We used to know how to deal with communists like this mong. But of course America just voted for giving those people special rights. Aint democracy great?

ShawnDoc:A good way around this would be a government inspector that gets called in only on these lawsuits to verify the integrity of the suit. Make it a flat $200 fee (or whatever), and if he says the business is clear, no lawsuit is allowed.

Mock26:These places usually had a single step up and the door bell could be reached by someone in a wheelchair. If this guy had rung the bell the employees would have brought out a ramp, set it up, and he could have entered the business.

They should not have been regarded as compliant without prominent signs indicating the availability of assistance. That's common sense.

Depends on what the amounts are. If they're legal fees + $1, it's just to put the transgression on record which means a settlement is out of the question. A shop that loses that sort of case has every incentive to fix the problem or the next lawsuit will be a slam-dunk case for big bucks.

sno man:Make the fee an even grand, and the inspection a condition of the suit (litigant pays). If they have enough of a case to proceed, they get it back win or lose, if they don't, bye $1k. They might think twice the next time and keep some of the frivolous suits out of the system.

All that does is put power only in the hands of those who can afford to lose the $1k. It'll make the numbers look good, but I think we've got enough plutocracy in the system.

ShawnDoc:ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Or C) Admit not every square inch of America can be rebuilt to be handicapped accessible, despite PC optimism. Sidewalks, public buildings? Sure. But small business and private building that were built decades or even a century before the ADA existed, not so much.

And the law allows for this. Unfortunately, you have to go to court and prove you are exempt from the ADA requirements, which means hiring a lawyer, paying for experts, site surveys, etc. Which is exactly how this scam works, the lawyer gives you two options:

A) Go to court and fight it, which will run you $30k at least, and there's still a chance you might lose depending on if the judge is an asshat or not.B) Pay us $5k, or $10k or whatever, and we'll drop the lawsuit.

A good way around this would be a government inspector that gets called in only on these lawsuits to verify the integrity of the suit. Make it a flat $200 fee (or whatever), and if he says the business is clear, no lawsuit is allowed.

1) allow anyone to sue when they see a violation2) provide an army of inspectors to check every business location in america.

#2 creates an incredibly large bureaucracy which couldn't possible service all of america reasonably

#1 provides for individuals to look like douche-bags by pointing out the incorrectly built and managed business locations

Or C) Admit not every square inch of America can be rebuilt to be handicapped accessible, despite PC optimism. Sidewalks, public buildings? Sure. But small business and private building that were built decades or even a century before the ADA existed, not so much.

This doesn't end until we get a 1:12 ramp to the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

The government should. Normal stores get inspected for fire hazards ect. in the US, no? So if being wheelchair accessible is a must that is signed into law, then they can inspect that too and hand out fines.

This bites, not only because of the douchebaggery of this woman's shister lawyer,, but also because I'm sure a lot of shops rent from a landlord and I would think it would be his responsiblity to bring these buildings up to standard, not the store owner. That would be like fining a tennant because a slum lord wouldn't upgrade his plumbing.

This has been a "hot" thing lately for the blood sucking lawyer types. They basically partner up with a handicapped person and have them file as many complaints as possible against as many people as possible because 90% of the time, people will settle out of court.